Prenda Law Is The Tip of the Iceberg

The Internet is rejoicing with news that notorious copyright troll Prenda Law, and its attorneys John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and Brett Gibbs, received a stinging sanction from federal judge Otis D. Wright, II - over $81,000 in attorney's fees and a referral to federal prosecutors. Using no fewer than twelve Star Trek references, Judge Wright accused Prenda Law of using "the nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable defense costs" to "plunder the citizenry." He referred the matter to "the federal agency eleven decks up" - the U.S. Attorney's Office - which is "familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage." Popehat, Wired, Techdirt, and many others have great summaries of the order.

We can rightly celebrate that Prenda Law has been rebuked and its practices exposed. Prenda (under various names) has filed hundreds of suits against thousands of Internet users, and their fall should discourage others from pursuing this business model. But the problem remains. Copyright is a broken system, biased in favor of copyright owners at the public's expense, prone to harsh punishment and ruinous damages, steeped in the misleading and unhelpful rhetoric of "theft" and "piracy." A system so out of balance is a natural haven for lawsuit abuse. Remember that Prenda Law (under various names) operated with impunity for about three years. These sanctions only happened because of sustained effort and careful research by many defense counsel and concerned citizens. Other troll lawyers are continuing to subpoena for the names of Internet subscribers, then shaking them down for "settlements," without the extreme conduct that landed Prenda in hot water but no less damaging to their victims. And broken copyright causes more subtle harm at the hands of law-abiding, even well-intentioned people.

Consider this: U.S. copyright law provides statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work - without the copyright owner having to show actual harm. Individuals have been hit with damages in the six figures, and companies with bankrupting judgments in the tens of millions. Threats of damages like this are one of the main ways that copyright trolls convince their victims to pay $2,000 to $4,000 in "settlements." But statutory damages are also wielded as a club by entertainment, media, software, and technology companies. They can destroy competitors and dry up investment with mere threats of litigation, giving them veto power over new technologies and emerging artists.

And consider "secondary liability," the judge-made rules for when one person can be held responsible for copyright infringement by another. The rules are vague and their application often uncertain. Copyright trolls use this uncertainty to make plausible-sounding threats against Internet subscribers. You may not have been the one who downloaded our movie, say the trolls, but your name is on the cable bill and the law will hold you responsible. It's not always true - in many cases, an ISP subscriber is protected from liability for others' downloading - but the rules are vague and complex enough to make the threat sound real.

Looking beyond trolls, the same vague legal principles create legal nightmares - and sometimes financial ruin - for people that try to play by the rules. Companies like ReplayTV and Veoh went bankrupt trying to convince courts that they shouldn't be held responsible when customers copy TV and movies. Dish Networks/ReplayTV, YouTube, and many less prominent technology companies face lawsuits where the toolmaker must answer for the tool user. Only lawyers benefit, as vagueness means long fights and lots of legal fees.

Last but not least, consider the rhetoric our government officials use when they talk copyright. The omnipresence of FBI "anti-piracy" warnings on digital media, the Department of Homeland Security's campaign of shutting down websites based on mere accusations of infringement, and the sheer volume of resources and tax dollars devoted to copyright enforcement have elevated the protection of copyrights above so many other public values. Free speech, due process of law, and privacy often take a backseat when someone cries "copyright." In this climate, it's no wonder that Prenda Law and its fellow trolls talk about "digital pirates" who are "threatening entire areas of creative works" when the trolls demand money - it puts them rhetorically on the side of motherhood and apple pie.

The U.S. Congress is beginning to take a serious look at copyright law, with the first hearing scheduled for May 16th. Lawmakers must keep in mind how privileges given to copyright owners can be used as tools of abuse as Prenda Law has done. And anyone who comes to Congress asking for expanded rights and powers for rightsholders should be prepared to explain how the public will be protected against the abuse of those rights.

Related Updates

Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA 1201) makes it illegal to get around any sort of lock that controls access to copyrighted material. Getting exemptions to that prohibitions is a long, complicated process that often results in long, complicated exemptions that are difficult to use. As part...

Washington, D.C.-On Monday, May 14, at 9:30 am, EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry will argue in court that the public has a right to access, copy, and share the law—and industry groups that helped develop certain legal rules can't inhibit that right by claiming ownership in those rules. EFF represents...

In a surprising decision that should terrify software developers, the Federal Circuit held today that Google’s use in its Android mobile operating system of Java API labels infringed Oracle’s copyright. Rejecting the jury verdict, the district court’s holding, and established law, the appellate court held that Google’s use was not...

It’s been a rough month for online journalism, as a pair of ill-advised copyright decisions from federal courts in New York chip away at the legal protections that allow it to operate. EFF and many others are joining forces to push back. First, in Goldman v Breitbart et al., a...

A Georgia energy company has made two separate attempts to take down public documents that let Seattle residents know how the “smart meters” on their homes work. Back in 2016, a local activist obtained two documents from the City of Seattle related to the smart meter technology. But some companies...

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we get into a Twitter fight with someone who gave our video game a bad review on YouTube. And when we say that we would never send a DMCA takedown for it. And when one mysteriously turns up anyway. This is...

With copyright being abused to shut down innovation and speech, and copyright terms lasting for generations, fair use is more important than ever. Without fair use, we’d see less creativity. We’d see less news reporting and commentary. And we’d see far less innovation. Fair use allows people...

In a victory for journalism and fair use, Playboy Entertainment has given up on its lawsuit against Happy Mutants, LLC, the company behind Boing Boing. Earlier this month, a federal court dismissed Playboy’s claims but gave Playboy permission to try again with a new complaint, if it...

In a decision that threatens legitimate fair uses, the Second Circuit ruled against part of the service offered by TVEyes, which creates a text-searchable database of broadcast content from thousands of television and radio stations in the United States and worldwide. The service is invaluable to people looking to...

Rejecting years of settled precedent, a federal court in New York has ruled [PDF] that you could infringe copyright simply by embedding a tweet in a web page. Even worse, the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets. If adopted by other...